The Greatest Propaganda Coup Of Our Time?

Tyler Durden's picture

From Mike Whitney of Counterpunch

The Greatest Propaganda Coup of Our Time?

There’s good propaganda and bad propaganda. Bad propaganda is generally crude, amateurish Judy Miller “mobile weapons lab-type” nonsense that figures that people are so stupid they’ll believe anything that appears in “the paper of record.” Good propaganda, on the other hand, uses factual, sometimes documented material in a coordinated campaign with the other major media to cobble-together a narrative that is credible, but false.

The so called Fed’s transcripts, which were released last week, fall into the latter category. The transcripts (1,865 pages) reveal the details of 14 emergency meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) in 2008, when the financial crisis was at its peak and the Fed braintrust was deliberating on how best to prevent a full-blown meltdown. But while the conversations between the members are accurately recorded, they don’t tell the gist of the story or provide the context that’s needed to grasp the bigger picture. Instead, they’re used to portray the members of the Fed as affable, well-meaning bunglers who did the best they could in ‘very trying circumstances’. While this is effective propaganda, it’s basically a lie, mainly because it diverts attention from the Fed’s role in crashing the financial system, preventing the remedies that were needed from being implemented (nationalizing the giant Wall Street banks), and coercing Congress into approving gigantic, economy-killing bailouts which shifted trillions of dollars to insolvent financial institutions that should have been euthanized.

What I’m saying is that the Fed’s transcripts are, perhaps, the greatest propaganda coup of our time. They take advantage of the fact that people simply forget a lot of what happened during the crisis and, as a result, absolve the Fed of any accountability for what is likely the crime of the century. It’s an accomplishment that PR-pioneer Edward Bernays would have applauded. After all, it was Bernays who argued that the sheeple need to be constantly bamboozled to keep them in line. Here’s a clip from his magnum opus “Propaganda”:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Sound familiar? My guess is that Bernays’ maxim probably features prominently in editors offices across the country where “manufacturing consent” is Job 1 and where no story so trivial that it can’t be spun in a way that serves the financial interests of the MSM’s constituents. (Should I say “clients”?) The Fed’s transcripts are just a particularly egregious example. Just look at the coverage in the New York Times and judge for yourself. Here’s an excerpt from an article titled “Fed Misread Crisis in 2008, Records Show”:

“The hundreds of pages of transcripts, based on recordings made at the time, reveal the ignorance of Fed officials about economic conditions during the climactic months of the financial crisis. Officials repeatedly fretted about overstimulating the economy, only to realize time and again that they needed to redouble efforts to contain the crisis.” (“Fed Misread Crisis in 2008, Records Show”, New York Times)

This quote is so misleading on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.

First of all, the New York Times is the ideological wellspring of elite propaganda in the US. They set the tone and the others follow. That’s the way the system works. So it always pays to go to the source and try to figure out what really lies behind the words, that is, the motive behind the smokescreen of half-truths, distortions, and lies. How is the Times trying to bend perceptions and steer the public in their corporate-friendly direction, that’s the question. In this case, the Times wants its readers to believe that the Fed members “misread the crisis”; that they were ‘behind the curve’ and stressed-out, but–dad-gum-it–they were trying their level-best to make things work out for everybody.

How believable is that? Not very believable at all.

Keep in mind, the crisis had been going on for a full year before the discussions in these transcripts took place, so it’s not like the members were plopped in a room the day before Lehman blew up and had to decide what to do. No. They had plenty of time to figure out the lay of the land, get their bearings and do what was in the best interests of the country. Here’s more from the Times:

”My initial takeaway from these voluminous transcripts is that they paint a disturbing picture of a central bank that was in the dark about each looming disaster throughout 2008. That meant that the nation’s top bank regulators were unprepared to deal with the consequences of each new event.”

Have you ever read such nonsense in your life? Of course, the Fed knew what was going on. How could they NOT know? Their buddies on Wall Street were taking it in the stern sheets every time their dingy asset pile was downgraded which was every damn day. It was costing them a bundle which means they were probably on the phone 24-7 to (Treasury Secretary) Henry Paulson whining for help. “You gotta give us a hand here, Hank. The whole Street is going toes-up. Please.”

Here’s more from the NYT:

“Some Fed officials have argued that the Fed was blind in 2008 because it relied, like everyone else, on a standard set of economic indicators. As late as August 2008, “there were no clear signs that many financial firms were about to fail catastrophically,” Mr. Bullard said in a November presentation in Arkansas that the St. Louis Fed recirculated on Friday. “There was a reasonable case that the U.S. could continue to ‘muddle through.’ (“Fed Misread Crisis in 2008, Records Show”, New York Times)

There’s that same refrain again, “Blind”, “In the dark”, “Behind the curve”, “Misread the crisis”.

Notice how the Times only invokes terminology that implies the Fed is blameless. But it’s all baloney. Everyone knew what was going on. Check out this excerpt from a post by Nouriel Roubini that was written nearly a full year before Lehman failed:

“The United States has now effectively entered into a serious and painful recession. The debate is not anymore on whether the economy will experience a soft landing or a hard landing; it is rather on how hard the hard landing recession will be. The factors that make the recession inevitable include the nation’s worst-ever housing recession, which is still getting worse; a severe liquidity and credit crunch in financial markets that is getting worse than when it started last summer; high oil and gasoline prices; falling capital spending by the corporate sector; a slackening labor market where few jobs are being created and the unemployment rate is sharply up; and shopped-out, savings-less and debt-burdened American consumers who — thanks to falling home prices — can no longer use their homes as ATM machines to allow them to spend more than their income. As private consumption in the US is over 70% of GDP the US consumer now retrenching and cutting spending ensures that a recession is now underway.


On top of this recession there are now serious risks of a systemic financial crisis in the US as the financial losses are spreading from subprime to near prime and prime mortgages, consumer debt (credit cards, auto loans, student loans), commercial real estate loans, leveraged loans and postponed/restructured/canceled LBO and, soon enough, sharply rising default rates on corporate bonds that will lead to a second round of large losses in credit default swaps. The total of all of these financial losses could be above $1 trillion thus triggering a massive credit crunch and a systemic financial sector crisis.” ( Nouriel Roubini Global EconoMonitor)

Roubini didn’t have some secret source for data that wasn’t available to the Fed. The financial system was collapsing and it had been collapsing for a full year. Everyone who followed the markets knew it. Hell, the Fed had already opened its Discount Window and the Term Auction Facility (TAF) in 2007 to prop up the ailing banks–something they’d never done before– so they certainly knew the system was cratering. So, why’s the Times prattling this silly fairytale that “the Fed was in the dark” in 2008?

I’ll tell you why: It’s because this whole transcript business is a big, freaking whitewash to absolve the shysters at the Fed of any legal accountability, that’s why. That’s why they’re stitching together this comical fable that the Fed was simply an innocent victim of circumstances beyond its control. And that’s why they want to focus attention on the members of the FOMC quibbling over meaningless technicalities –like non-existent inflation or interest rates–so people think they’re just kind-hearted buffoons who bumbled-along as best as they could. It’s all designed to deflect blame.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying these conversations didn’t happen. They did, at least I think they did. I just think that the revisionist media is being employed to spin the facts in a way that minimizes the culpability of the central bank in its dodgy, collaborationist engineering of the bailouts. (You don’t hear the Times talking about Hank Paulson’s 50 or 60 phone calls to G-Sax headquarters in the week before Lehman kicked the bucket, do you? But, that’s where a real reporter would look for the truth.)

The purpose of the NYT article is to create plausible deniability for the perpetrators of the biggest ripoff in world history, a ripoff which continues to this very day since the same policies are in place, the same thieving fraudsters are being protected from prosecution, and the same boundless chasm of private debt is being concealed through accounting flim-flam to prevent losses to the insatiable bondholders who have the country by the balls and who set policy on everything from capital requirements on complex derivatives to toppling democratically-elected governments in Ukraine. These are the big money guys behind the vacillating-hologram poseurs like Obama and Bernanke, who are nothing more than kowtowing sock puppets who jump whenever they’re told. Here’s more bunkum from the Gray Lady:

”By early March, the Fed was moving to replace investors as a source of funding for Wall Street.


Financial firms, particularly in the mortgage business, were beginning to fail because they could not borrow money. Investors had lost confidence in their ability to predict which loans would be repaid. Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, sold itself for a relative pittance to Bank of America. Bear Stearns, one of the largest packagers and sellers of mortgage-backed securities, was teetering toward collapse.


On March 7, the Fed offered companies up to $200 billion in funding. Three days later, Mr. Bernanke secured the Fed policy-making committee’s approval to double that amount to $400 billion, telling his colleagues, “We live in a very special time.”


Finally, on March 16, the Fed effectively removed any limit on Wall Street funding even as it arranged the Bear Stearns rescue.” (“Fed Misread Crisis in 2008, Records Show”, New York Times)

This part deserves a little more explanation. The author says “the Fed was moving to replace investors as a source of funding for Wall Street.” Uh, yeah; because the whole flimsy house of cards came crashing down when investors figured out Wall Street was peddling toxic assets. So the money dried up. No one buys crap assets after they find out they’re crap; it’s a simple fact of life. The Times makes this sound like this was some kind of unavoidable natural disaster, like an earthquake or a tornado. It wasn’t. It was a crime, a crime for which no one has been indicted or sent to prison. That might have been worth mentioning, don’t you think?

More from the NYT: “…on March 16, the Fed effectively removed any limit on Wall Street funding even as it arranged the Bear Stearns rescue.”

Yipee! Free money for all the crooks who blew up the financial system and plunged the economy into recession. The Fed assumed blatantly-illegal powers it was never provided under its charter and used them to reward the people who were responsible for the crash, namely, the Fed’s moneybags constituents on Wall Street. It was a straightforward transfer of wealth to the Bank Mafia. Don’t you think the author should have mentioned something about that, just for the sake of context, maybe?

Again, the Times wants us to believe that the men who made these extraordinary decisions were just ordinary guys like you and me trying to muddle through a rough patch doing the best they could.

Right. I mean, c’mon, this is some pretty impressive propaganda, don’t you think? It takes a real talent to come up with this stuff, which is why most of these NYT guys probably got their sheepskin at Harvard or Yale, the establishment’s petri-dish for serial liars.

By September 2008, Bernanke and Paulson knew the game was over. The crisis had been raging for more than a year and the nation’s biggest banks were broke. (Bernanke even admitted as much in testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in 2011 when he said “only one ….out of maybe the 13 of the most important financial institutions in the United States…was not at serious risk of failure within a period of a week or two.” He knew the banks were busted, and so did Paulson.) Their only chance to save their buddies was a Hail Mary pass in the form of Lehman Brothers. In other words, they had to create a “Financial 9-11?, a big enough crisis to blackmail congress into $700 no-strings-attached bailout called the TARP. And it worked too. They pushed Lehman to its death, scared the bejesus out of congress, and walked away with 700 billion smackers for their shifty gangster friends on Wall Street. Chalk up one for Hank and Bennie.

The only good thing to emerge from the Fed’s transcripts is that it proves that the people who’ve been saying all along that Lehman was deliberately snuffed-out in order to swindle money out of congress were right. Here’s how economist Dean Baker summed it up the other day on his blog:

“Gretchen Morgensen (NYT financial reporter) picks up an important point in the Fed transcripts from 2008. The discussion around the decision to allow Lehman to go bankrupt makes it very clear that it was a decision. In other words the Fed did not rescue Lehman because it chose not to.


This is important because the key regulators involved in this decision, Ben Bernanke, Hank Paulson, and Timothy Geithner, have been allowed to rewrite history and claim that they didn’t rescue Lehman because they lacked the legal authority to rescue it. This is transparent tripe, which should be evident to any knowledgeable observer.” (“The Decision to Let Lehman Fail”, Dean Baker, CEPR)

Here’s the quote from Morgenson’s piece to which Baker is alluding:

“In public statements since that time, the Fed has maintained that the government didn’t have the tools to save Lehman. These documents appear to tell a different story. Some comments made at the Sept. 16 meeting, directly after Lehman filed for bankruptcy, indicate that letting Lehman fail was more of a policy decision than a passive one.” (“A New Light on Regulators in the Dark”, Gretchen Morgenson, New York Times)

Ah ha! So it was a planned demolition after all. At least that’s settled.

Here’s something else you’ll want to know: It was always within Bernanke’s power to stop the bank run and end to the panic, but if he relieved the pressure in the markets too soon (he figured), then Congress wouldn’t cave in to his demands and approve the TARP. Because, at the time, a solid majority of Republicans and Democrats in congress were adamantly opposed to the TARP and even voted it down on the first ballot. Here’s a clip from a speech by, Rep Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in September 2008 which sums up the grassroots opposition to the bailouts:

“The $700 bailout bill is being driven by fear not fact. This is too much money, in too short of time, going to too few people, while too many questions remain unanswered. Why aren’t we having hearings…Why aren’t we considering any other alternatives other than giving $700 billion to Wall Street? Why aren’t we passing new laws to stop the speculation which triggered this? Why aren’t we putting up new regulatory structures to protect the investors? Why aren’t we directly helping homeowners with their debt burdens? Why aren’t we helping American families faced with bankruptcy? Isn’t time for fundamental change to our debt-based monetary system so we can free ourselves from the manipulation of the Federal Reserve and the banks? Is this the US Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?”

But despite overwhelming public resistance, the TARP was pushed through and Wall Street prevailed. mainly by sabotaging the democratic process the way they always do when it doesn’t suit their objectives.)

Of course, as we said earlier, Bernanke never really needed the money from TARP to stop the panic anyway. (Not one penny of the $700 bil was used to shore up the money markets or commercial paper markets where the bank run took place.) All Bernanke needed to do was to provide backstops for those two markets and, Voila, the problem was solved. Here’s Dean Baker with the details:

“Bernanke deliberately misled Congress to help pass the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). He told them that the commercial paper market was shutting down, raising the prospect that most of corporate America would be unable to get the short-term credit needed to meet its payroll and pay other bills. Bernanke neglected to mention that he could singlehandedly keep the commercial paper market operating by setting up a special Fed lending facility for this purpose. He announced the establishment of a lending facility to buy commercial paper the weekend after Congress approved TARP.” (“Ben Bernanke; Wall Street’s Servant”, Dean Baker, Guardian)

So, there you have it. The American people were fleeced in broad daylight by the same dissembling cutthroats the NYT is now trying to characterize as well-meaning bunglers who were just trying to save the country from another Great Depression.

I could be wrong, but I think we’ve reached Peak Propaganda on this one.

(Note: By “good” propaganda, I mean “effective” propaganda. From an ethical point of view, propaganda can never be good because its objective is to intentionally mislead people…..which is bad.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
The Gooch's picture

100 years of usury.

File on time, serfs.

James_Cole's picture


I could be wrong, but I think we’ve reached Peak Propaganda on this one.


The author points out the funny thing we always see in the media:

- Before a crisis all these financial folks are geniuses who’s word must be treated like holy script from the bible. 

- During crisis they are - of course - the only ones who know how to handle things  and thus must be granted whatever powers they desire

- After crisis we find out actually that they were caught by surprise and tried to do their best but were totally overwhelmed by unexpected developments, in other words they were (temporary) dumbasses

- And finally we’re told but now they’ve learned and things will be different and we must totally support them going forward. 

Rinse and repeat!


SoberOne's picture

Can we please end the fucking fed now? Criminal behavior rewarded with trillions. What a strange world we live in.

bigdumbnugly's picture

no, probably not,

today's trillions are tomorrow's kazillions.

it doesn't end until it is made to do so.

Troll Magnet's picture

One Jewish-owned institution providing cover for another Jewish-owned institution? Say it ain't so!

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that these people lie and cheat from birth to death! Uh uh. No way!

Jack Burton's picture

I'm pretty sure the Lutherans are behind a lot of this. After all, they didn't burn us at the stake for nothing. AKA Bloody Mary, Queen of England before Elizabeth.

AlaricBalth's picture

"Good propaganda, on the other hand, uses factual, sometimes documented material in a coordinated campaign with the other major media to cobble-together a narrative that is credible, but false."

This is called sophistry and the Fed has mastered the art. Sophistry is an argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so.

The current economic dogma espoused by the high priests of finance at the Fed is widely accepted as incontrovertible. It has been designed to obfuscate and confuse the public at large.

The false narrative that the Fed is wise and infallible has been carefully cultivated over the last hundred years. Economists as disciplined scientists have proven to be nothing more than modern day alchemists. They have their computers and various economic models such as rational expectations and quantitative analysis, which are mind boggling to the layman and convey a conviction of authority which is utilized to garner trust.

In reality the Fed's forecasting prowess is no better than the national sports prognosticators who, like the Fed rely on a populace with a short memory.

Manthong's picture

Well, look at the good news (don't forget other uses for fraud fiat)..

At least Obama’s buddies got plenty of fiat to blow on fake or failed “green” boondoggles.

fockewulf190's picture

Just wanted to add, that there has been more than enough time to produce this document to show the public the story they want told.  It could all be genuine, but it could also be a scrubbed and rewritten storyline written by design by a national intelligence service. 

It would be interesting to know what kind of secrecy clauses members must agree to before appointment.

As Mr. Whitney writes above:

"Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying these conversations didn’t happen. They did, at least I think they did."

They want you to think that it´s all untampered and legit, but there is no practicle way of proving that they are, indeed, genuine or not.  I mean seriously, after such an amount of time has passed, and consequential events have happened as a result of decisions made, "armchair quarterbacks" galore can come in and create, modify, scrub, or completely rewrite history. In todays political world, who wouldn´t take advantage of such an opportunity?

Unless another Snowden pops up with a thumb drive full of whoopass, you get the document as is. 

RealityCheque's picture

Assuming its "quadrillion" next. What is the next denomination after that?

Seriously now, because we all know we're going to see it.

cynicalskeptic's picture

Better to be seen as an affable bungler than an evil plotter.... hey, it worked for W.  Cheney and the neo-cons get more blame than the man who was President - and who carefully plotted the path to get ther.. the 'ranch' in Crawford and a deliberate 'dumbing down' of the public image (along with a thorough scrubibing of all past records - including TANG service).  

You don't really think that the behind the scenes plotting will ever be revealed, do you?    It's always been thus.  The history of the world for public view is very different than the reality.

weburke's picture

the harvard study on education reccomended doing away with history studies.

easy to say "gee we were dumb" instead of haveing to explain real reasons. Other side of it is when they lay our massive lies, expecting those with careers to go along with the lies or else. my latest favorite is "hybrid howlers".

James_Cole's picture

There's definitely a lot of stupidity involved. It's like someone hires a contractor to do work on their house and through sheer stupidity the contractor burns the house to the ground. Then, not only does the person hire the contractor to build their replacement house but also asks advice on how to protect against fires.

Idiocy on all sides, only way it can work though is high levels of propaganda. 

nmewn's picture

"Idiocy on all sides, only way it can work though is high levels of propaganda."


Kinda like the 30 million uninsured beating down the doors of health insurance companies to get ObamaCare right now.

It doesn't make any difference if the side thats "comfortable" with the propaganda won't step forward and help expose the lie.

James_Cole's picture


Propaganda is always crafted to the audience, i.e. the people who’d want to believe its particular lies. Hence why the propaganda that would work on me is different than the propaganda that would work on you. 


SDShack's picture

No surprise that the greatest propaganda of our time would come from the greatest sociopaths of our time. It's what they do... because it's ALL they do.

20834A's picture

You nailed it, James. +100

blindman's picture

“Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

? Kenneth Boulding
Prepare 2014 Economic Collapse, Global Economic Crisis

mvsjcl's picture

"But while the conversations between the members are accurately recorded..."


And you know this because....?

DavidC's picture

"Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying these conversations didn’t happen. They did, at least I think they did."


Kirk2NCC1701's picture

They're all professional liars, be it "WH Bob" or "Baghdad Bob":

TeamDepends's picture

Even the parrot won't poop on the FOMC.

alfred b.'s picture


    ....try saying that to the puppet supposedly in charge!    Or is it the Excuser in charge?


Gaurden's picture

Looks like you have a bad case of liars.

There is no cure.

SDShack's picture

The cure for a sociopath is what it has always been. Establish the rule of law equally for all. No separate law for elites, and a different law for the masses, and enforce the law judiciously and equally for all. Absent that, the only other option is revolution. History almost always involves the second choice.

Robot Traders Mom's picture

Glad Whitney clarified good/effective propaganda. And while the Fed disseminates propaganda, I would call these Fed transcripts more of an attempt to rewrite history than blatant propaganda (but still obviously propaganda). And yes, it should be subliminal and not blatant, but the Fed targets the 99% of Americans without a clue, thus their propaganda can be more overt than others. 99% of Americans have no clue what the Fed is, let alone that will read their historical transcripts. Fed propaganda comes from shills like Andrew Ross Sorkin and Rachel Maddow (read: Hollywood types that have more of an audience than an actual clue)... 

Angus McHugepenis's picture

How to Cure the Propaganda Disease:


Your mind will clear up and you'll start thinking for yourself again within 48 hours.

Yen Cross's picture

   Angus, you're clearly an thespian, teacher, scholar, analyst, arbitrator<?

    You make "perfect" sense to me!

cynicalskeptic's picture

MOPE - management of perspective economics.......     MANIPULATION OF THE PUBLIC AND THEIR BEHAVIOR BY CONTROLLING THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TO THEM... hence the 'all is well', unemployment is dropping, recovery is underway, housing is recovering, blah blah blah blah 

throw in a few inconsequential prosecutions of relative nobodies in the financial sector and a few fines paid by the big boys (gotta LOOK like people are bing held accountable) andf the hope is that the masses will stay sitting on their couches instead of rioting in the streets

Shad_ow's picture

Then convince two other people to do the same, ask them to convince two more, and so on. 

Most of my friends and family are somewhat aware of the lies, they just won't let go of the hope it isn't as bad as we know it is.  Knowledge is power to prepare even if we can't stop the inevitable.

Radical Marijuana's picture

Does the Shad_ow "know?"

Since the real world is dominated by a group which are collectively trillionaire mass murderers, who are criminally insane, and good at nothing except being the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, whose lies are backed up by the violence of millions of mercenary madmen, I SYMPATHIZE WITH PEOPLE WHO "just won't let go of the hope it isn't as bad as we know it is!"

It is actually way worse than that, since the only genuine solutions would be to operate better murder systems, to back up better money systems, however, the existing ones we have now were already selected by history to become "successful" because they were the maximum possible destruction backed deceits, enabling the maximum possible force backed frauds. Any genuinely better resolutions to our chronic political problems would require the millions of mercenary madmen to become more enlightened about what they are really doing. However, they are necessarily the group of people who are most brainwashed to believe in bullshit, and therefore, the last ones enabled to understand their own reality.

It is actually already trillions of times worse, and headed towards being quadrillions of times worse, since the international banksters that made and maintained their systems have lost control over their own systems, which they no longer are able to comprehend. The banksters that built the current established systems have not only become criminally insane, but also, they have so totally lost contact with more objective realities that there are no ways for them to cope with the problems that they have created. Neither the rulers, nor those they rule over, are able to understand the runaway social insanity situations which exist at the present time! Hence, the overall situation is not only worse than we know it is, it is worse than we can imagine it is!

Element's picture

Hitler pointed out in 1923 that there are three main types of people in society.

The first-type is by far the largest group, those who are dull enough and credulous enough to believe everything they are told without resistance.

The second-type is a significant minority who believe most things up to a point, but are smart enough to detect poorly concealed lies, but then end up believing almost nothing once they detect that they are being deliberately lied to by the State and media, so often become radicalized and the State struggles to manage and control this type.

The third-type is a tiny minority who believe nothing at all, they examine everything each time, take nothing at all for granted, and are difficult to fool for long.

Hitler identified that only the first type mattered politically, in a democracy, and that all propaganda should be directed towards them. The second group could be suppressed and maybe coerced into compliance, or imprisoned, etc. The third type were very valuable, but dangerous, and if they would not cooperate it was best to be rid of them.

The Communists did pretty much the same thing, and the intelligentsia really got purged.

The West followed much the same pattern but it found slightly more constructive methods to better manage or accommodate the second type, and to find a use for the third type.

But Govt policy is always the "free choice" of the first-type, and they were always fully informed, in advance, of what their opinions would be on any issue, so that the correct democratic choice was always voluntarily made.

Works great!

Thus GW Shrub and Bazza Obozo.

i.e. you only need bother with a 'leader' and an MSM that can accommodate the 'needs' of the first-type.

This why TV and politics both suck-ass, most people seem to act like drones, the police dress like Darth-Vader clones, and the FED and TBTF banks blatantly rip-off the public with no trouble at all, and why 9-11 was done by al-qaeda.

So for the propaganda to actually stop working within this sort of heavily controlled propaganda friendly environment, the politics and MSM have to be really blatantly composed of a stunning number of totally absurd contradictions and brimming full of flat-out lies, day-in and day-out, for about half a century or more, before the first-type in society begins to suspect that maybe something ain't quite right.


Welcome to 2014

mvsjcl's picture

"...and why 9-11 was done by al-qaeda."


Your conclusion needs work.

Element's picture

If your prodigious imagination can conjure a conclusion out of that, that's you making a 'conclusion', not me presenting one.

mvsjcl's picture

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, Element. But it read to me as if you were affirming that the 19 hapless arabs were the perps of 9/11. I'll re-read it.

Element's picture

You were reading it wrong. ;)

mvsjcl's picture

And btw, it's been a while since anyone has bestowed on me the complement that I'm in possession of a prodigious anything, much less an imagination! So thank-you. :-)

KickIce's picture

Don't forget Hollywood and their outrageous plots such as zombies/aliens that then proceed to portray how only government can save the world.  Then there's shows like NCIS that show how trustworthy and honest government officials are.  It shows them continueosly violating indivdual rights but it's okay since they're doing it to catch bad guys.

Zadig's picture

Good point.  It's a constant stream of propaganda and conditioning. 

Oldwood's picture

As Barney Frank once said, their actions cannot be unconstitutional as they are only trying to help the American people. When you only have goodness in your heart you can do no wrong, no matter how many million people's lives you completely fuck over.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

oldwood, you forgot to add, and barney gets his man play toys in fanny (ha ha) and freddy (lol), while bribes from ws banks roll in to add the cherry on top.

mt paul's picture


with license  ...

GooseShtepping Moron's picture

The return of the modified limited hangout.

Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

"Maybe they should try reading books instead of burning them"

Oldwood's picture

I would rather just be "told" what to think. Reading is so "yesterday".

no more banksters's picture

Same as IMF tactics. It is better to appear unreliable than to let people understand that you serve specific interests:

bunnyswanson's picture

Arseniy Yatsenyuk has DUAL citizenship.  A fucking banker.


"Yatsenyuk, 39, is a millionaire former banker who served as economy minister, foreign minister and parliamentary speaker before Yanukovych took office in 2010. Widely viewed as a technocratic reformer, he appears to enjoy the support of the U.S.

The top U.S. diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, was overheard discussing Yatsenyuk and other Ukrainian opposition figures in a bugged phone called that was leaked, saying "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience."

One of the first jobs for Yatsenyuk and other members of his new Cabinet will be seeking outside financial help from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Economists say Ukraine is close to financial collapse, with its currency under pressure and its treasury almost empty. The acting finance minister has said Ukraine will need $35 billion in bailout loans to get through the next two years."

Read more: